Changes between Version 82 and Version 83 of MD10.refstack.20130715

Timestamp:

Sep 13, 2013, 3:14:06 PM (13 years ago)

Author:

Mark Huber

Comment:

--

MD10.refstack.20130715

@@ -715 +715 @@
 Skycell coverage comparison -- edges and central dither
  * original config night stack
-|| ||
+{{{
+large image order:
+| 20120825 | 20121014 | 20121023 |
+| 20121211 | 20121215 | 20130714 |
+| 20101103 | 20101123 | ... |
+}}}
+
+|| skycell.051 || || skycell.055 ||
 || [[Image(md10ns20130831s051large_ds9.jpg,500px)]] || || [[Image(md10ns20130831s055large_ds9.jpg,500px)]] ||
 
+{{{
+zoom slice image order:
+| 20120825 | 20121014 | 20121023 | 20121211 | 20121215 | 20130714 | 20101103 | 20101123 |
+}}}
+
+|| skycell.051 || || skycell.055 ||
 || [[Image(md10ns20130831s051slice_ds9.jpg,500px)]] || || [[Image(md10ns20130831s055slice_ds9.jpg,500px)]] ||
 
  * suggested config night stack 
-|| ||
+
+{{{
+large image order similar -- except skycell.051 missing 20120825 (first in sequence)
+}}}
+|| skycell.051 || || skycell.055 ||
 || [[Image(md10nstest20130830s051large_ds9.jpg,500px)]] || || [[Image(md10nstest20130830s055large_ds9.jpg,500px)]] ||
 
+{{{
+zoom slice image order similar -- except skycell.051 missing 20120825 (first in sequence)
+}}}
+|| skycell.051 || || skycell.055 ||
 || [[Image(md10nstest20130830s051slice_ds9.jpg,500px)]] || || [[Image(md10nstest20130830s055slice_ds9.jpg,500px)]] ||
 
@@ -801 +822 @@
 | meh_md10ssdifftest.20130715_1dg_v3.20130714nstest20130830 | i.00000 |  473571 | 0.917     |    1112 | 
 
-
-
-
 }}}
 
  * original config night stack
+{{{
+zoom slice image order --  skycell.051 dropped 20120825 (3rd in sequence) to match loss in config night stack sample
+skycell.051 -- | 20101103 | 20101123 | 20121014 | 20121023 | 20121211 | 20121215 | 20130714 |
+skycell.055 -- | 20101103 | 20101123 | 20120825 | 20121014 | 20121023 | 20121211 | 20121215 | 20130714 |
+}}}
+|| skycell.051 || || skycell.055 ||
 || [[Image(md10ssdiff20130831s051slice7_ds9.jpg,500px)]] || ||  [[Image(md10ssdiff20130831s055slice_ds9.jpg,500px)]] ||
 
  * suggested config night stack 
+{{{
+zoom slice image order -- except skycell.051 missing 20120825 (3rd in sequence)
+-- skycell.051 -- | 20101103 | 20101123 | 20121014 | 20121023 | 20121211 | 20121215 | 20130714 |
+-- skycell.055 -- | 20101103 | 20101123 | 20120825 | 20121014 | 20121023 | 20121211 | 20121215 | 20130714 |
+}}}
+|| skycell.051 || || skycell.055 ||
 || [[Image(md10ssdifftest20130830s051slice_ds9.jpg,500px)]] || || [[Image(md10ssdifftest20130830s055slice_ds9.jpg,500px)]] ||
 
 
-Detection number comparison --
+Detection number comparison -- see table above for now, break down of numbers by good/bad flag types probably useful..
 
 
@@ -819 +849 @@
 
 Was at least a good test to help flush out issues with the 1D convolution method. Basically want to decide if there is an improvement without a decrease in robustness, maybe also use for reprocessing only. 
- * hard cut for FWHM ~12 to match the camera stage rejection does not quite work, extra allowance needs to be made for edges by ~2 pixels. The functional method used for making the LAP stacks may also be an alternative.
- * 1D convolution appears equivalent in terms of the unconvolved stacks, and more robust at not 
- * Nin minimum 2 -- useful in filling in regions or actually producing stacks in nights with fewer inputs
- * SAFE false (single input pixels allowed) is somewhat uncertain -- more area on edges is definitely seen, how useful it is as a single warp is the question versus just using the warps for them.
+ * hard cut for FWHM ~12 to match the camera stage rejection 
+  * does not fully work well, extra allowance needs to be made for edges by ~2 pixels.
+  * will help prevent excessively large target PSF from being chosen when 1D convolution is used (select target PSF as maximum FWHM input)
+  * the functional method used for making the LAP stacks may also be an alternative.
+ * 1D convolution 
+  * appears equivalent in terms of the unconvolved stacks
+  * will be more robust in avoiding crazy target PSF unlike the ISIS method that uses PSFEnvelope to determine and thus image rejections will also be more stable
+ * N input warp minimum 2 (instead of >=4)
+  * useful in filling in regions or actually producing stacks in nights with fewer inputs
+ * SAFE false (single input pixels allowed) is somewhat uncertain
+  * more area on edges is definitely seen, how useful it is as a single warp is the question versus just using the warps for them.
 
 
@@ -848 +885 @@
 == MD+3PI Stack Summary ==
 
-
-